22 June 2005

I'm a Scientist, You're a Fool

Even without the blatant conflict of interest
throughout the vaccination approval and recommendation system, the future is
clear from the outset because CDC's vaccination schedule does not pass the most
basic common sense test. CDC recommends that infants receive a Hepatitis-B
vaccination within 24 - 48 hours of birth. I don't care if they study
this issue for 100 years and find that a vast majority of infants have no
detectable side effects from the Hep-B shot, introducing a foreign organism and
mercury into a completely undeveloped immune system is strike one (they recently
recommended a Hg-free Hep-B shot, but it is much more expensive and so the CDC
still recommends the Hg-laden shot if the Hg-free shot is "unavailable").
Immunizing broadly and indiscriminately regardless of the mother's Hep-B status,
which is the only reasonable way an infant can get Hep-B, is strike two. (By
reasonable I mean to imply that an infant could be exposed if an infected IV
drug user pricked the infant, but how reasonable of a risk is that?) That the
CDC decided to implement universal Hep-B vaccination of newborns only because it
was unsuccessful in targeting the community that is actually at risk of
contracting Hep-B (same group as is high risk for HIV), is strike three. In
other words, the fact that CDC even recommends Hep-B vaccinations for newborns
destroys their credibility for me."

Best response to doctor who is both on the panel investigating vaccines AND
the vaccine company's payroll:

Yes, my friend, that is exactly the way it works.
Conflict of interest laws exist precisely because people like you think
that way. In other words, you are not allowed to decide the merits of your own
conflict of interest because you are not a disinterested, objective observer!
Isn’t this obvious?